Escola v.
Coca-Cola (1944)  view, however, the doctrine may be applied
 
Gibson, ​C.J.
 
I. Facts:   provided plaintiff first proves that the
 
● Gladys Escola is a waitress in a restaurant
whose hand was injured when the Coca
Cola bottle she was holding suddenly
exploder in her hand.
● The accident occurred while Escola was
transferring the Coke from the case with her
right hand one by one to the refrigerator.
Escola was able to transfer three cases until
the fourth one exploded in her hand 18
inches from the case.
● The bottle broke into two jagged pieces and
inflicted a deep five-inch cut, severing blood
vessels.
● Escola's employer testified that he saw this
happened and was only twenty feet away
when he heard the explosion.
● The driver of Coca Cola likewise testified
that he had seen other bottles of Coke
exploded before. However, the driver has no
idea why these bottles exploded.
● Escola rested her case relying solely on the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
● The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff hence
the appeal by Coca Cola to the US Supreme
Court.
II. Issue: ​WoN Plaintiff may use the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur to hold Coca-Cola liable for
damages. ​YES  rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to
 
III. Rationale:   present.
● Many authorities state that the happening of
the accident does not speak for itself where
it took place some time after defendant had
relinquished control of the instrumentality
causing the injury. Under the more logical
upon the theory that defendant had control at
the time of the alleged negligent act,
although not at the time of the accident,
condition of the instrumentality had not been
changed after it left the defendant's
possession.
● Upon an examination of the record, the
evidence appears sufficient to support a
reasonable inference that the bottle here
involved was not damaged by any
extraneous force after delivery to the
restaurant by defendant. It follows, therefore,
that the bottle was in some manner defective
at the time defendant relinquished control,
because sound and properly prepared
bottles of carbonated liquids do not ordinarily
explode when carefully handled.
● An explosion such as took place here might
have been caused by an excessive internal
pressure in a sound bottle, by a defect in the
glass of a bottle containing a safe pressure,
or by a combination of these two possible
causes.
● Although it is not clear in this case whether
the explosion was caused by an excessive
charge or a defect in the glass, there is a
sufficient showing that neither cause would
ordinarily have been present if due care had
been used. Further, defendant had exclusive
control over both the charging and inspection
of the bottles. Accordingly, all the
requirements necessary to entitle plaintiff to
supply an inference of negligence are
 
IV. Dispositive: ​The judgment is affirmed.